What the UFT Has In Store - After the Elections, Of Course

UFT shill Peter Goodman uses his blog to float trial balloons. Here is a goodie where he praises the District 79 reorganization plan (which was Mulgrew's baby if you are looking for signs as to where he really stands), the Detroit teachers contract (described in Substance as the worst in the history of the AFT) and New Haven contracts.

The dissolution of the ATR pool, the shrinking of the rubber rooms and an expedited discipline process, using student achievement data in the tenure granting process, salary compensation schedules that include raises for “merit” are all possible for the creative.

Some iteration of the District 79 Reorganization Plan, the Peer Review Plus Program (Article 21J), peer review (including teachers in the evaluation of probationary teachers), differentiated staffing similar to the Lead Teacher (MOA, 2005, para 13), perhaps some of the elements in the New Haven and Detroit contracts could produce a “win-win” contract. A contract that the mayor could laud as a national model and a contract that would satisfy the union membership.

Read the gory details at Ed in the Apple. GAG, GAG, GAG.

As one contact just wrote me, "2005 proves the membership will go for absolutely anything."

Michael Fiorillo wrote:
Someone I know works in District 79 (Alternative High Schools) and the reorganization (overseen at the time by Michael Mulgrew) was a disaster for teachers and students. Every teacher had to re-apply for their job, and fewer than half were re-hired. The resources are being cut back, students are seeing opportunities for schooling limited, and the district is infested with Ivy League and TFA know-nothing parasites.

Marjorie Stamberg responded:
Michael, your remarks on D 79 are well put! The recent NY Times profile on District 79 superintendent, Cami Anderson, a TFA "superstar" was revealing -- their most important "goal" -- not educating kids, but "moving up" the corporate school ladder with resume builders like the D79 "restructuring ' (i.e., closing schools, throwing teachers into the ATR pool, losing kids, denying special ed services, etc).

Roz Panepento, former chapter leader of ASHS, (Auxiliary Services for High Schools) one of the D79 schools which was first down-sized, then closed, has written a retrospective on the catastrophic 2007 reorganization of D79 and our battle to save staff positions and save kids. I would like to post it on some of the blogs, for colleagues information.

--Marjorie

ATRs, Chicago, New Haven, and NY State Plan for Massive School Closings

That headline certainly is a mouthful. But there's a lot on the table in this post, so hang in.

Let's try to connect all the dots. (I put the entire series of links to articles mentioned here up on Norms Notes. Read them and weep.)

Let me start with this great quote from Leonie Haimson:

Why should any teacher be summarily be fired unless the decision is based on some objective criteria? Again, the stigma of being associated with a failing school is enough for the editors, which will provide a powerful disincentive for any experienced teacher to choose to move to a low-performing school. This is akin to blaming the workers at a GM factory for the conditions that led to the firm’s bankruptcy. Should they be barred from every being employed in the industry again if Toyota set up shop in the factory?


Think: close massive numbers of schools and create non-unionized charters.

Problem: that pesky UFT contract that guarantees ATRs created by closing schools and excessing will continue to be paid.

Solution: follow the Chicago and Washington DC model of giving ATRs one year to find a job or they're out. With the UFT contract expiring on Halloween, there is speculation the UFT will pull a sellout and give them what they want. (See Jennifer Medina's article - for which she interviewed me but I didn't make the cut- in today's Times).

Problem #2: This is the point I made to Jenny Medina. With an internal election coming this Jan/March, can the Unity/Mulgrew operation afford to give up the ATRs before then? Not that they expect to lose, but with almost every teacher in the system facing ATRdom, the fright factor might drive votes to the ICE/TJC slate and provide a sense of a growing and credible opposition.

Historically, the UFT/Unity machine comes in with a contract timed to the internal election, usually between November and January. So, there should be a contract signed soon after the mayoral election without any open attacks on ATRs, other than some definitive buyout offers, which is actually part of the 2005 contract. Now, there might be some hidden stuff in there. Like a "guarantee" for protection of ATRs that in reality will turn out to have no teeth.

Marjorie Stamberg comments on the Times article urging people to be vigilant:

Last year's demonstration at Tweed is a key reason why the DOE was forced to step back on its constant teacher-bashing and vilification of ATRs. Action by the ranks was important in getting UFT officialdom to try to deal with the problem they helped created in the first place by giving up seniority transfers and agreeing to principal control of hiring and the phony "open market" -- key elements of the corporate agenda for "education reform."

Make sure to watch the video I made of that crazy day - The Video the UFT Doesn't Want You To See: The ATR Rally


A Village Voice hit job on ATRs?

Gotham School gals Anna Philips and Phylissa Cramer wrote a disappointing piece on ATRs for the Village Voice (The City's Bid to Save Cash Leaves New Teachers Out in the Cold), that some teachers are viewing as part of the hit job on ATRs. The piece is all sympathetic for those poor new teachers (and most likely much more wonderful than any ATR) whose hopes about getting a job were dashed by the existence of those foul ATRs. There's not one quote from an ATR who's been screwed, but Ariel Sack's attack on the ATRs in her school is referenced. TILT!!

Here is one interesting point in the Philips/Cramer piece:

Much could depend on the outcome of the UFT's latest contract negotiations, which began last month. Teachers, city officials, and labor experts are speculating that the city will try to negotiate a time limit for how long teachers can remain in the ATR pool. The city says the reserve teachers—who are guaranteed a full salary—are costing the system millions of dollars that otherwise could be used to bring in new teachers who principals want to hire. Already, the DOE is pressuring ATRs harder than ever to find jobs, for the first time requiring them to interview at schools with openings in their field and to attend job fairs. Those who don't are subject to the department's disciplinary process. Chancellor Klein has said repeatedly that he would like to see a time limit placed on the hiring process, giving ATRs nine months to a year to find a new position before being terminated.

"The entire ATR situation is the result of a failed management strategy," says Dick Riley, a UFT spokesman. He insists the union is no happier about the ATR situation than the city is: "The DOE was aware that as it closed schools and cut back programs, veteran teachers would become available for new assignments, yet it continued to recruit new teachers. The result has been that some newcomers did not get the jobs they had been led to expect, and many veteran teachers are now working as substitutes."

NY State plans massive school closings

Then comes this NY Post reporter Yoav Gonen article (State charting new course for old HS's) that expands the idiocy, as the state wants to close a number of large high schools and create, not only thousands of ATRs, but thousands of high school kids floating around looking for new schools.


Here are a few choice tidbits from Yoav's piece:

State officials are seeking to dismantle as many as a dozen large city high schools and turn many of the newly created smaller schools that will occupy their buildings into charters, The Post has learned. Officials said they're also looking to partner with outside managers, such as CUNY and New Visions for Public Schools, to help run some of the newly formed schools. The controversial plan will be included in New York's application for a share of $4.3 billion in federal education aid, known as Race to the Top, which requires states to detail how they'll turn around their lowest-performing schools.

....this marks the first time that charter-school managers, who operate less than a handful of high schools in the city, have been asked to get involved in such restructuring.

sources said schools that are likely to make the list include Columbus and Gompers high schools in The Bronx, and Sheepshead Bay HS in Brooklyn -- although the principal at Sheepshead Bay denied her school would be on the list.

Schools on the state's annual list of failing schools -- including Boys and Girls HS in Brooklyn and even a number of middle schools -- are also likely contenders.

"There is not going to be a person in New York state who will be able to defend any of the schools that end up on our replacement list," state Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch said at a recent conference. "It's not going to be a controversial list."

Chicago/Duncan model of school of school closings shows fault lines of policy

Merryl Tisch ought to read the report about the failure of Duncan's school closing policies in Chicago Report Questions Duncan’s Policy of Closing Failing Schools. With the emphasis on charters, they need to get that charter cap lifted and the pressure to do so to get that stimulus Race to the top money will be intense. But be assured, after they close almost every large high school and the city is awash in ATRs and a floating band of kids with no schools to go to, we will be reading a similar report in a few years. Unless they cover it up.

This story about the failures of the Ed Deform policy in the urban area with the longest history of mayoral control and ed deform was almost buried in the NY Times yesterday exposing so much of the ed deform program of closing schools. I included the Ed Week article and some comments by Leonie Haimson in my post of the reports at Norms Notes.

But here are some excerpts:

“If the findings are correct­—for Chicago, at least—we have to question the value of closing schools and creating the dislocations that would attend those school closings for little or no constructive result,” said Daniel L. Duke, a professor of educational leadership at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville.


Julie Woestehoff, the executive director of Parents United for Responsible Education, a Chicago advocacy group often critical of Mr. Duncan’s initiatives as district chief, said the study’s findings are more evidence that the district’s reform strategies are not working. The group has called for the end of Renaissance 2010, a district program that closes low-performing schools and replaces them with charter and charterlike schools run by private groups.

“When Arne Duncan announced this program, he said it was going to lead to dramatically better education for the children. We were hoping that would be true,” Ms. Woestehoff said. “There hasn’t really been any payoff from all the money that has been spent and all the disruption that has been caused to communities and especially to students.”

Chicago’s school closings returned to the spotlight this fall after a high school student was brutally beaten and killed in a fight near a South Side high school. Local activists have contended that the school closings created a dangerous mixture of students from rival neighborhoods. Mr. Duncan said earlier this month that blaming school closings for the uptick in violence was “absolutely ridiculous.” ("Outcry Against Violence," Oct. 14, 2009.)

New Haven teacher contract
The lunacy continues with Thursday's editorial in the Times on the New Haven schools contract, where our old friend and Klein Klone Garth Harries, who was hired on the recommendation of Ed Notes (Garth Harries Leaves DOE as Ed Notes Helps Pass Klein Lemons) is doing his magic. As I reported based on my conversation with a New Haven official, Harries was hired specifically because his ties to the BloomKlein administration were thought to give the city a leg up on getting stimulus money. Note the praise for Randi's AFT/UFT:

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is right to push the nation’s schools to develop teacher evaluation systems that take student achievement into account. The teachers’ unions, which have long opposed the idea, are beginning to realize that they can either stand on the sidelines or help develop these systems. We hope they will get involved and play a constructive role.

The politically savvy American Federation of Teachers has decided that it is better to get in the game. In New Haven, the union has agreed in its new contract to develop an evaluation system in collaboration with the city. Secretary Duncan praised the agreement lavishly. But the accolades seem premature given that crucial details have yet to be worked out.

Leonie Haimson connects the dots between the school closings, New Haven, and Chicago stories

As ususal, Leonie Haimson puts it all together with these comments, which offer more of a defense of teachers rights than we ever hear coming from the UFT:

Today’s Times editorial delivers faint praise for the New Haven teacher union deal –because “administrators will be able to remove the entire staff at a failing school and require teachers to reapply for their jobs. This should allow the new principals to build stronger teams.”

(Teachers who are not rehired at these so-called turnaround schools will have the right to be placed elsewhere, at least until they are evaluated, which means that New Haven could still end up passing around teachers who should be ushered out of the system.)

Why should any teacher be summarily be fired unless the decision is based on some objective criteria? Again, the stigma of being associated with a failing school is enough for the editors, which will provide a powerful disincentive for any experienced teacher to choose to move to a low-performing school. This is akin to blaming the workers at a GM factory for the conditions that led to the firm’s bankruptcy. Should they be barred from every being employed in the industry again if Toyota set up shop in the factory?


The Times editors also criticize the deal for requiring that evaluations be made on multiple factors – with the factors weighted by a committee including teachers and administrators.

To be taken seriously, the evaluation system must be based on a clear formula in which the student achievement component carries the preponderance of the weight. It must also include a fine-grained analysis that tells teachers where they stand.

The Times, like Michelle Rhee, now implicitly equates “student achievement” with standardized test scores – without openly admitting that these words are being used as an euphemism because of the widespread unpopularity (and unreliability) of using test scores alone.

Indeed, there is no system that can reliably tie teacher performance overall to student test scores; there are too many uncontrolled variables and hidden factors. .

Meanwhile, Sam Dillon covers the report we posted yesterday, showing that most of the students who were transferred out of closing schools in Chicago did no better elsewhere, and the disruption in their lives caused their test scores to dip in the months following their transfer

Report Questions Duncan's Policy of Closing Failing Schools

… the report’s findings are likely to provoke new debate about Mr. Duncan’s efforts to encourage the use of Chicago’s turnaround strategy nationwide. He has set the goal of closing and overhauling 1,000 failing schools a year nationwide, for five years, and Congress appropriated $3 billion in the stimulus law to finance the effort.

Too bad the Times editors didn’t read this article first.

Now, it’s scary that, according to the NY Post, the model of closing schools and giving them over to charter schools and other management companies like New Visions is coming to NYC – as part of the state’s “Race to the top” application. No mention of the fact that the small schools that already exist and the charters enroll fewer low-performing students in order to get better results.

The difference between the school closure model and the “turn around” model is more semantics than anything else. In both cases, the strategy seems like a blunt instrument: focused on replacing teachers and students with a new crew, rather than actually improving conditions on the ground to allow them to become more successful. I predict that neither New Visions nor the charter schools will be willing to take the bait unless they are given substantial financial subsidies, and/or allowed to pick and choose the students they want, while discharging most of those already in the building to parts unknown.


For more, see State charting new course for old HS's at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/state_charting_new_course_for_old_MC67S9He0EtCWO0GKj56JP

This is the kind of stuff that should be in the NY Teacher. If I weren't supporting James Eterno, I would shout from the rooftops "Leonie for UFT president."

Anna Got Her Gun

Gotham Schools' Anna Philips worked so hard to get a copy of the contract demands handed out at the DA on Weds. She was there for hours talking to so many teachers. Yet, no one would give. But soon after she left, with two of us left outside ready to go eat, Daily News reporter Rachel Monahan came by with a copy which was the basis of her article yesterday. I was with a member of the negotiating committee who wouldn't give Rachel an inch.

Now, I went outside when the discussions began because Unity hacks always love to blame me for leaks, so I knew nothing anyway.

Anna, who had to listen to at least 3 rants from me yesterday, was still working to get a copy but she finally got it and has posted it at Gotham. Read it and feast - on what's missing. Class size - remember that? Some semblance of order in the wild west of the open market system? Any takeback at all? Some people talk about the extended day in Gotham's comments. I'm not totally against a longer day, but how about some rationality that would make sense for kids and teachers? I would actually make it somewhat voluntary for teachers. There is substantial money involved and most would do it anyway. Some schools have really figured it out but in others things are a little weird.

And by the way, for those people twisted over teachers betraying the ridiculous cone of silence, it's time to put the cone on themselves. You might get the cone to work for 300 people, but for over a thousand? And I did hear Mulgrew say, "Of course we expect you to discuss this with your members" [not really]. Mike then suggested they put the cone over their schools.

Are We Close to a Contract?

UFT Changes Sept 16 Chapter Leader Meeting into a Delegate Assembly

The usually somnolent early September chapter leader meeting has been converted into a Delegate Assembly to discuss contract demands. Is it possible that a contract will be handed out 10 minutes before the meeting and people will be asked to vote on it? This is the usual modus operendi of the UFT. But with the million member Unity Caucus dominated negotiating committee having met a few times and having some of the members (at least the non-Unity Caucus ones) kept in the dark about this DA, all balls are in the air.

Many people believe that the entire committee was a sham from day one and that Randi had negotiated a contract before she left on August 1. One thing was clear: the UFT folding on any opposition to mayoral control, term limits, and staying neutral in the mayoral race is part of the factoring in the contract.

Here is the UFT announcement, which asks chapter leaders to report on over sized classes. One thing we can bet our pensions on is the sure bet there will be no class size relief in the contract.

Special DA to discuss contract demands

The first Delegate Assembly of the year, Wednesday, Sept. 16, starting at 4:15 p.m. at 52 Broadway, will be devoted to discussing the UFT’s demands in the current negotiations for our new contract. All delegates are encouraged to attend. Chapter leaders should report to their district rep at the DA how many oversized classes in each grade they have in their schools (see To Do item on class size grievances for further details).

UFT Contract Questionnaire and UFT Cast of Thousands Contract Committee

The cone of silence descends on the UFT negotiating committee.

Here is a follow-up to our post on the UFT Survey on Thursday (The UFT Survey Says (Gag, Gag).....) which included an analysis by TJC and an opportunity to get a copy of Marian Swerdlow's point by point comparison titled

2006 vs. 2009: A Section-by-Section Guide to What Can We Learn from Comparing Two Questionnaires

Marian said it was ok to include some quotes. Here is a sample of this insightful analysis:

I. Negotiating Priorities
Twenty out of twenty-two of these questions are identical to the 2006 survey. Mostly, this is because we did not get any of the "priorities" we were asked about three years ago. (Examples: "an enforceable process to identify and reduce excessive workload," "less restricted use of sick days," "stronger contract language requiring supervisors to honor program preferences.") The changes are instructive. Gone is a question about "improved medical benefits." This omission, and other changes I'll describe below, make it clear to me that there is a de-emphasis on our medical benefits. My guess is that this is because we are about to make concessions on our medical benefits. Also omitted is "maintaining current pension benefits." As of June 22, that patient died.

She does this for every section. Email me for a copy at normsco@gmail.com.

ICE's Vera Pavone also did some analysis:

A couple of points to add to the discussion on the Contract Questionnaire and the Contract Committee. Maybe they were made and I missed them:

1. The contract questionnaire has been distributed to all working members including nurses. Pages 1 through 7 are to be answered by everyone, and then subsequent pages are for different job titles. The questions for every member include items on: class size; adequate equipment and supplies; the 37 ½ minutes; improved working conditions in after-school and summer activities; relief from involuntary coverages; safety and discipline; training and materials for mandated programs; money for instructional materials; hours spent outside school for calling parents, preparing lessons, grading papers. Why should nurses be weighing in on these questions?

2. The issue of class size is posed in the usual divisive manner that we have come to expect from the Unity leadership: We are asked to rate in terms of importance:

“5. lower class size as a part of the contract, but not if it takes money from salary” and

“6. lower class size as a part of the contract, even if it takes money from salary”

Why were questions on class size coupled with salary? Why not all other questions that involve costs—improved facilities, salary supplements, adequate equipment and supplies, improved working conditions in after-school and summer activities, reducing excessive workload?

Of course for almost 40 years the Unity Caucus leaders have consistently posed lower class size against salary as a way of confusing and dividing teachers from one another.

3. The only item on the 37-1/2 minutes is “address concerns regarding use of 37 ½ minutes”. What about the choice of calling for the elimination of the 37 ½ minutes?

4. “School-wide bonus programs should be expanded.” (p. 10) So the choice is between expansion and leaving as is. Shouldn’t teachers have a chance to weigh in on “School-wide bonuses should be eliminated.” Or “School-wide bonuses should not be tied to student test scores.”

4. Student Assessments and Tests (p. 11):

What about the elimination of the high-stakes aspects of tests?

Questions on the Negotiation Committee: How are people chosen to be on this committee? Of the 350 committee members how many are in Unity Caucus? Does secrecy mean that Unity Caucus members don’t discuss the issues brought up for discussion among themselves? Are we to believe that the only discussion that takes place among Unity Caucus members is in the committee room?

Good questions Vera. Ahhh, the negotiating committee and the cone of silence or gag order. I didn't cover some of the aspects of the undemocratic nature of the 350 (it might as well be 3000) negotiating committee. I got this email from someone on the committee:

Each member (secret cult) had to sign a contract that swears them to secrecy. They may have to leave work (school) and if they are requested to do so, they will be paid. Members have to promise to attend all meetings. The issue of discussing what goes on at the meetings is strictly prohibited. That part was in the contract several times.

I'll do more on this farce in the future but here is another interesting email I received:

I have a newbie teacher friend. Very, very new to the UFT and not aware of half the things we have struggled with forever. Anyway, was invited to participate on the UFT Negotiation Committee. What's the story on that?? How are they "choosing" random teachers to work on the new contract? Not to mention brand new people who know nothing about the contract and how members have been sold out over the years. I think this is crazy!

LIFT THE CONE OF SILENCE. CALL FOR OPEN NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL KEEP THE MEMBERS INFORMED ALL THE WAY AND STOP BACKROOM DEALS

Bulletin Boards 'R US

The following interchange on bulletin boards either affirms the need for extensive teacher contracts or makes the point that no matter what they say, or don't say, they are often irrelevant. I always found that there was much fuzzy language that could be exploited by admins. At one point the UFT was able to get away with stuff. But under BloomKlein, principals have received training and advice in how to go around the contract and chapters have been devastated.

Take the ironclad language of a guaranteed duty-free lunch period. This has been violated constantly through "lunch 'n learn" meetings. The UFT response: make believe it isn't happening. Note Woodlass' advice includes the proviso of whether the UFT would back such a grievance on bulletin boards. My bet is it won't or only do so tepidly because the UFT strategy has been to hope there are places where the contract is being followed and a loss on the grievance would open up the door. Not a winning or aggressive long-term strategy. But what else can we expect from them?

Posted to ICE-Mail:
Hi Group,

What exactly is the story with bulletin boards and the UFT contract?

My admin says ( in *writing*): "Bulletin boards in the hallways and cafeteria must display current ( name of school) themes and be updated by the second Friday of each month."

Note the word "must". A slew of other specifics follows.

OTOH, the Know Your Rights section of the UFT website contains the following:

Bulletin Boards
If you are required to do classroom or hall bulletin boards, their format is up to you. In a right won recently, your principal cannot dictate how they look or discipline you for their format.

I told my supervisor of the apparent contradiction; she said she was not aware that the contract spoke to this issue. Actually, I can't find in in the contract either, but it IS most definitely on the UFT website as quoted.

May seem minor but is NOT. These out-of-classroom ex-teachers OBSESS about bulletin boards. Form AND content; to the most *minute* detail. It is a HUGE distraction from real teaching.

So who's right? Me or the admins?

Thanks.

Woodlass reply:

Bulletin boards are mentioned in the contract in Art. 21.A.6, below.
But notice it says the FORMAT, not the CONTENT.

The way I see it is this:

The only way to resolve this ambiguity (if you see it as ambiguous, it may be really concrete and NOT grievable at all) is if the union backs you at Step II (which is up to you to convince your DR to go for it), and then hope it gets it to the arbitrators. They don't pick up every Step I and take it all the way. I try not to file a grievance unless I know they're going to back it at Step II. Step II we always lose, but if it gets to Step II and loses, you might be able to convince union to take it to Step III, which is then arbitration. There are only limited slots for arbitration, so I don't know they'll go the whole way with you.

ARTICLE TWENTY-ONE: DUE PROCESS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
A. Teacher Files
Official teacher files in a school shall be maintained under the following circumstances:
6. The following issues shall not be the basis for discipline of pedagogues: a) the format of bulletin boards; b) the arrangement of classroom furniture; and c) the exact duration of lesson units.


Thanks, Woodlass. We're not at the grievance point yet. Apparently this is a "right recently won" ( the UFT website) and it is likely that the admins are not up to date.

OTOH, if they lose the authority to micromanage bulletin boards I'll be damned if I know what they'd come-up with nest.

They have to do *something*. Or appear as though they are.

I'll make the rounds with the aforementioned 21 A6, and see what kind of reaction it elicits.

I'll keep you posted. ( BTW, yes.... too bad "format" is not defined; hard to distinguish sometimes from "content".)

Thanks again.

ATR Update

Marjorie provides some preliminary analysis here. James Eterno and Jeff Kaufman will take a closer look and report on the ICE blog later. As she points out, the DOE and the union are feeling the heat. Marjorie and gang made powerful presentations at PEP on Monday. And they continue to go to UFT Exec Bd and Delegate Assemblies to put pressure on the union. Maybe the powerless in the UFT are finding ways to nudge the elephant in the room.

I don't see anything about the RTRs who are to be fired on Dec. 5th.


Marjorie Stamberg reports:

Today, the DOE and UFT signed off on a "side agreement" on the ATRs, which was presented to a special Executive Board tonight and approved. This is a complicated document, with various financial incentives for principals to give positions to ATRs, while maintaining the framework of the contract and budget structure which continually generate new ATRs. I'm attaching the agreement here, so everyone can read and discuss it. (See Norms Notes.)

Importantly, it was announced that the UFT rally to support the ATRs is still on for November 24th at 4:30 at Tweed. (This was despite some feelers earlier in the day about possibly changing the "venue" away from Tweed; we said no way.) The DOE is clearly feeling the heat for not placing teachers "as the city confronts the current fiscal crisis." So our organizing is having an effect. Let's redouble our efforts to mobilize in the schools and get everybody out!

The fact that the DOE signed off on language that says the ATRs are a "pool of available, qualified, experienced teachers" undercuts Klein's trash campaign in the media where he has tried to scapegoat teachers for a situation the DOE created. While the DOE agreed to "in good faith pursue hiring ATRs," we repeat our central demand that there be no new hiring until all ATRS who want positions are placed.

The side agreement provides for some formula of partial central funding and budgetary incentives that might encourage principals to place ATRs. However, the central principle that the principal has the sole right to hire whomever remains. The endless excessing due to reorganization of schools and programs will continue. And Joel Klein in the DOE press release says he's still pursuing his thwarted obsession to "terminate" ATRs.

There's also a paragraph that keeps the door wide open for "provisional" placements of ATRs who could then be excessed again at the end of the school year.

At the Executive Board, Roz Panepento, former Chapter Leader at ASHS (before we were re-organized into GED-Plus), spoke powerfully, saying the side agreement reminded her of what happened in D79 a year ago, when hundreds of teachers were excessed. The agreement just had too many loopholes, she said, and the union should be fighting for a moratorium on new hires until all ATRS who want positions, are placed.

We have struggled long and hard to defend ATRs. We know well --"If we're not ATR now, we could be soon." So the struggle continues, and we're having an effect. Let's keep the heat on.

Bring a delegation from your school, and see you November 24th.

Majorie

UFT Files Grievance for ATR Fellows Facing Firing Deadline

The UFT announced today they have filed a grievance to prevent the firing of 130 Teaching Fellows who face being terminated on Dec. 5. This is beyond a firing in that due to the special TF circumstances they will lose their provisional teaching certification and be tossed from their cohort's masters degree program even if they offer to pay. Upon joining the TF, they were required to sign a document that this would occur, but the over hiring by the DOE that led to this situation is inexcusable.

The UFT claims it "is aggressively pursuing the matter with the DOE." Right. They argue

that such a move by the DOE would constitute a layoff, which is not allowed under the UFT/DOE collective-bargaining agreement unless the city declares an official financial emergency, which it has not. The union further argues that the UFT/DOE contract supersedes the DOE hiring agreement that teaching fellows were required to sign when they agreed to join the program.

The Teaching Fellows working with the Ad Hoc ATR Committee commented:

They are starting to do what they must for us. They didn't consult with us, or even tell us they had done so. An email to them making today our deadline for action is certainly the motivation. They could have called to let us all know that they were filing (get input, etc.) but somehow they just can't do it. We might have told them that we weren't hired in September. We've been telling them all along that they haven't filed a grievance for for the last 2 classes of NYC Teaching Fellows. [Why not?]

Of course we look at it as UFT public relations to get them off their backs. They certainly didn't act when TF's were fired last year only because none of them were organizing. Thus, a good lesson for all interest groups in the UFT to get some level of organizing going. Remember the prime directive of Unity Caucus: Hold onto power at all costs. Only a perceived threat of people going over to the opposition will get them to move even if only in a way to make it look like they are dancing the moon walk.

To be clear this is only a grievance not a law suit asking for an injunction to stop it.
Questions to ask:
What is the timetable for the grievance?
Will this be expedited?
Does the grievance go directly to the last step?

Hearing officers for grievances are DOE hires.
After that it goes to arbitration which can take a year.
Remember that the UFT loses almost 95% of all grievances.

Rhee Bypasses Talks, Imposes Dismissal Plan

Have a contract? Negotiations broke down? Just ignore it all and forge ahead.

D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee made good yesterday on repeated threats to bypass labor contract negotiations by imposing her own program to fire ineffective teachers, including a measure that gives poorly performing instructors 90 days to improve or face dismissal.

Details from the Washington Post at Norms Notes.

For our NYC colleagues, one of the reasons Randi has been so collaborative is her fear that BloomKlein will pull the same stuff. "See, we broke the contract, do something about it." So Randi makes deals to give up the arm and half the leg and brags to the membership how they still have their thigh bone while leaving enough loopholes that allow BloomKlein to whither it away. But you still have your hip.

The Stealth Contract

special to Education Notes, author wishes to remain anonymous

We need to challenge the union leadership’s maneuvering to prevent discussions of items that they say are already in the contract that the membership voted on. The inclusion of clauses in the contract that are seemingly innocuous and buried in neutral sounding verbiage must be criticized. Any time the union says that it is opening discussions on items, or exploring the possibility, etc., we know that something terrible is down the pike. It is a stealth maneuver that allows them to give up more behind our backs.

What’s happening now is that the Union Leadership is portraying the merit pay proposal as a victory for us. A victory over what? Over the fact that the ambiguous contract language meant that the outcome could have been worse? The worse possibility was certainly hidden from the membership during the contract vote. And, just because the worst case scenario (individual merit pay) hasn’t yet occurred, it doesn’t mean it won’t. As many people have pointed out, school merit pay opens the door to individual merit pay, especially since they are leaving the method of distributing bonuses up to a principal-dominated school committee.

But even if the bonuses were distributed evenly to all UFT members within a school, we must recognize that merit pay is a significant setback for union solidarity and a huge step in the continuous attack on teacher professionalism. In the newly defined verbiage of the federal government and the DOE, “professionalism” has been equated with adherence to their “research based” educational mandates, and their criteria of success, always tied to test scores, and always used to further their political and corporate careers. But from the point of view of teachers, professionalism includes the commitment to do what’s best for the children, the right to make decisions, and to expect the kind of support necessary to succeed. Like other professionals they should be able to make use of their own education, training, talent and experience. The DOE’s carrot (bonuses) and stick (closing of schools) strategies are not only insulting but are bad for public education.

That our Union Leadership has joined the DOE and mayor in furthering an agenda of high stakes testing and its punitive consequences for students and teachers alike is shameful. When they say that this is what the members voted for, they are just proving that their role is to fool us rather than represent our interests.

Giving up on the UFT Delegate Assembly

The following was distributed at the UFT citywide chapter leader meeting on Sept. 25.

Education Notes has been distributed at almost every Delegate Assembly since 1996. Roughly 100 editions of the paper, in various formats from mimeographs to full newsprint tabloids.

The last regular print edition of Education Notes will be distributed at the October Delegate Assembly and will only publish in print when there are special issues on the table.

Why stop now?

Ed Notes began when I was a chapter leader and delegate as a means of establishing a regular communication with the members of the Delegate Assembly to counter the Unity Caucus spin.

The initial purpose of Ed Notes was to inform delegates of motions I was going to present in advance to meet the “has to be printed if 3 lines or more” rule. I would inform Randi Weingarten before the meeting where I was sitting. Initially, things worked out, with Randi even declaring to the DA “I love reading Ed Notes.” But then again, I wasn’t overly critical of her and Unity Caucus at that point, thinking that as a new President, she would bring a breath of fresh air to a union that was in much need of reform. I also felt that with New Action being such a weak (and pathetic opposition even then) that only by getting Unity people to back reforms would we see the kind of democratic changes that would prepare for the coming attacks. New Action even began spreading rumors that Randi was funding Ed Notes. Ironic in the light of New Action’s total sell out in years to come.

At some point it became clear that I was being avoided when Weingarten wasn’t happy with my motion, even canceling the new motion period (the only opportunity for rank & file delegates) at one point. I angrily told her that in all my years at the DA (since 1971) neither Shanker nor Feldman had ever gone that far. The final straw came in 2001 when I spent 4 months trying to get a motion calling for the UFT to reject all schemes that hint at merit pay. That was followed soon after by Weingarten’s endorsement of mayoral control, a clear disaster for members of the UFT. (I had been in touch with George Schmidt in Chicago.)

It was clear there would not only be no reform under Weingarten but she would take the control and manipulation of the membership to new heights. And so she has. At that point Ed Notes went into opposition mode which led to the formation of ICE by supporters of the paper after the New Action sell-out left a void.

I won’t go into the history of the past 5 years. Just look at your schools and the state of the union at the school level where pre-UFT conditions prevail in so many places. From Kahlenberg’s new Shanker bio: “Shanker was assaulted by a student, but when he asked for help from the principal he was told, ‘This would not have happened if you had motivated your students.’” That was 1952. “Administrators were in a position to play favorites, assigning some teachers to ‘administrative assignments’ and others to the most violent classes. At long drawn out faculty conferences “teachers sat there seething.”

Back to the future.

So, why stop publishing the print edition of Ed Notes now? Ed Notes continues to be more active than ever on the ednotesonline blog. But with Unity Caucus more tightly in control than ever and a DA that reminds me of the Roman Senate in the declining years of the Republic, the idea of reaching out to people at the Delegate Assembly seems fruitless.

Weingarten has turned the DA into a farce. Why not just put up a video of her hour long report on the web and save everyone the trip?

The past few months of last school year took things to a new level. With 10 items waiting on the agenda, a deputy mayor and DOE reps from the reorganization are brought to the April DA and a meeting gets extended until after 6:30. One blogger, a member of New Action, actually complained about this on his blog. Where was he at the meeting raising a protest at the outrage? Only silence. And silence from most of the opposition, including some of my colleagues in ICE. They seem to have given up on the DA too.

The outrage continued at the next DA when Manhattan chapter leaders, who voted 19-1 to call for discussion at the June DA on a rally against the reorganization, had their resolution overwhelmingly defeated. Nothing better illustrates the disconnect between the schools and the Unity Caucus leadership when nineteen chapter leaders representing probably a thousand to fifteen hundred members are turned down in the attempt to discuss - I repeat “Discuss” - the idea of a rally. (By the way, are you still happy with the cancellation of the May 9th rally?)

But it went further. When Kit Wainer rose to defend himself against Jeff Zahler’s red-baiting attacks, Weingarten had the nerve to suggest that the body read all 10 resolutions while he spoke so they could be voted on en masse. When someone objected, she incredulously said, “Well, people have been waiting for these for so long, it is not fair to obstruct them.”

No one called a point of information to remind the delegates about the deputy mayor and all the DOE people at the previous DA. Farce, indeed!

At that point I said “Enough.”

It seems the overwhelming majority of delegates and CL have accepted the rationale of the Unity spinmeisters that the UFT leadership bears absolutely no responsibility for the events of the last 5 years. They are coated with Teflon. Similar to the way BloomKlein have become the heros of the nation for basically destroying the union at the ground level. It confirms a new insight - that the most important job in the world – one I would urge any young person to go into – is public relations.

In fact, the UFT leadership have been enablers of BloomKlein. And all too many members of the DA have been enablers of the leadership. If they won’t look at themselves in the mirror and see that the conditions for most rank and file teachers resemble those that existed before the birth of the UFT, there is no point in Ed Notes trying to convince them otherwise.

I pity the rank and file. To survive they have to fight a 2 front war – against a horrendous assault on them by BloomKlein and with a collaborationist leadership that has shown a masterful ability to coopt and deflect any hint of militancy that might arise. I can go into numerous examples but you will have to read them on the ednotesonline blog, where daily I post the outrages of the BloomWeinKlein team.

Have I given up? Not at all. Not with the loads of emails coming in from teachers in schools all over the city that have been decimated by BloomKlein who are screaming for a union that will truly stand up for them. Increasingly, teachers are beginning to take action on their own, in small groups. The U-rated, rubber rooms, ATR’s are beginning to make their voices known. The biggest threat they face to this movement is from a union that will leap in to gain control of them by promising action with words, not deeds. They will get high level meetings which will impress them no end. But in the end the most vocal might get a behind the scenes transfer or some special deal that will separate them from the rest of the group.

Deflection, cooptation, delay. Or form a committee.

I will continue to work with ICE and support TJC. But from now on I will only attend Delegate Assemblies purely for the entertainment value – and for the post DA visit to a local pub with the regular DA gang. Join us. If you are an independent delegate, skip the meeting and go directly to the pub where the real delegate assembly will take place.

The UFT Leadership and Fuzzy Contracts...

...honest mistakes, or deliberate deception?

by juliwoo, guest columnist

I've generally given the UFT leadership credit for drawing up each new contract with honest intentions. Maybe they were outfoxed by BloomKlein. Maybe there were too many tactical errors. Maybe they weren't fighting hard enough. But I always assumed the ambiguities in the contract were the result of someone just not paying enough attention. Slip-ups.

Since we have lost so much ground in the past few years, I’m looking at things a little differently and am more unhappy with the fuzzy wording and the misplaced bits of text. With so many legal heads supposedly having worked on this document, I have come to believe that where the text is unclear, the leadership meant it to be so — to confuse members and mask the severity of the givebacks.

After the fact-finding report came out in 2005, much was written about the seniority rights we were going to lose and subsequently did lose. I was pretty oblivious to the chatter, though, feeling no particular threat to my career and assuming ATR neverland was not going to happen to me.

But I was, in fact, excessed last spring, music being the fickle little subject that it is, and after being told by Human Resources that “the days of us finding you [teachers] a job are over,” I looked up “excessing” in the contract. It was at Article 17, which states more than once that excessed teachers would be placed in new jobs.

Then I got all kinds of stuff from the DOE telling me to sign up in the Open Market system, including a massive, condescending document on how we could improve our job hunting — which they wouldn’t have dared to send to their own parents if they had been senior teachers excessed out of their jobs. I sent angry emails to the UFT to find out what was going on and why I was being pushed towards this new hiring system. Didn’t 17B say I’d be placed? I hadn’t even heard of the Open Market before, and hadn’t much looked into the whole transfer thing in general because there hadn't been any need to. I was content enough in my job.

In response to my memos to RW and others, grievance head Howard Solomon asked me to come to 52 Broadway to talk about these issues "from beginning to end.” Adam Ross (legal) was also there. They listened to my gripes and acknowledged there might be a contradiction between a rule or two in 17B which they would perhaps tighten up.

I walked away from that meeting thinking I had done my homework, made my complaint, and was heard.

What a dupe I was! Festering away in another part of the contract that I had not seen was an entirely different scenario for the excessed teacher. In Article 18, “Transfers and Staffing,” there was more on the subject. I was really surprised to see in the middle of 18A that vacancies “will be posted as early as April 15” and “candidates (teachers wishing to transfer and excessed teachers) will apply — ”

Wait a minute. How did that “and excessed teachers” bit get in here? I thought the subject of this article was transfers and staffing. The words “will apply” are rather vague as well. Must they apply? Will they apply only when they want to apply?

Clearly, Solomon and Ross were willing to talk "from beginning to end" about the issues I had brought up in my emails, but they were not at all inclined to point out other parts of the contract they knew I had overlooked, bits that are absolutely crucial to any discussion of what happens to a teacher when he is excessed.

The long and short of this is that these two articles in the contract, on excessing and on transfers, contradict each other entirely.

Rule 4 of Article 17B says that excessed teachers “must be placed in vacancies within the district to the fullest degree possible,” or for certain categories “must be placed in appropriate vacancies within the district or central office or if no such vacancy exists, within the region.”

Rule 6 says that the “central board has the responsibility for placing teachers who are excessed from a school or office and cannot be accommodated.” But an important factor at the very core of teacher placement (or non-placement, as it happens) crops up way down the list of rules, at no. 11 — so far away from 4, 5 and 6 that I missed it at first.

It starts: “Unless a principal denies the placement, an excessed teacher will be placed by the Board . . .” (Note that it again says the Board will do the placing, but that’s not what’s important here.) The mistake I made, and I’m sure many have done this as well, was to trust what the sentence implied, that under normal circumstances excessed senior teachers could expect to get placed by the Board. My second mistake was to brush off the severity of the final sentence, that “the Board will place the excessed teacher who is not so placed in an ATR position.” I had heard, of course, about various people becoming ATRs during the course of the year, but not in great numbers, not like we've been hearing about this summer. I more or less set that ATR possibility aside as a long shot.

With all the legal expertise running this union, are we to believe that these half-truths, set out as they are in various non-contiguous paragraphs and especially under a less than truthful heading (18), are the result of carelessness?

I don’t think so. I think that the UFT leadership has deliberately fogged up this contract, first to obscure the complete sellout of our seniority rights, and then to make it difficult for us to demand they defend our jobs.

We know this chancellor will keep following his businessman’s path towards financial gains for the privateers he’s feeding and losses for the rank and file. He's never been a standard bearer for the public good. We expect him to treat some teachers as collateral: he'll tolerate the cost of paying senior ATRs for a few years until they are weeded out through disillusionment, harassment, or legitimate retirement.

For all Weingarten's pretty words, she has really broken faith with us. Ingratiating herself into corporate and governmental playgrounds kept her from doing the job we've been paying her to do, which is to keep blocking these deplorable attacks on our core benefits and not stand down.

When a union president, who is herself a lawyer and supported by an entire legal team, is capable of writing succinct, fail-safe text and then chooses not to do it, we demand to know why.


Editors Note to juliwoo:
We don't need them to tell us why?
UFT staff director's Jeff Zahler's own words from the UFT weekly update.


"Underscoring the need for genuine collaboration, Weingarten made a joint appearance that morning with Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Eliot Spitzer, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Council of School Supervisors and Administrators Ernest Logan at PS 53 in the Bronx."

The UFT/Unity caucus leadership function like the French Vichy government in WWII. They ought to serve Vichyssoise at Exec. Bd. meetings.